Print
Minnesota resident Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, was thrust into the public eye in 2006, when the music industry chose her for the most unenviable role imaginable: the poster girl of the brand of digital piracy that the average Joe practices from the comforts of his home. Several record companies sued her for copyright infringement on April 19, 2006.
Though the court originally ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay a fine of $220,000, the fine was raised to a vertiginous $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song, at a retrial. She was now left with a three-pronged hope: a court will scrap the fine or at least lower it; or a bankruptcy court will pave the way for her escape; or she will land a major book deal.
But she can now heave a sigh of relief as a U.S. District court has lowered the fine to relatively manageable levels. Michael Davis, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, lowered the fine to $54,000. "The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music," the Judge remarked in his verdict.
The decision leaves the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) with seven days to either accept the fresh fine or request a retrial. Joe Sibley, one of the defendant's attorneys, told Cnet that the judge had made “it much more equitable and this was much closer to the $0 award that we were seeking."
Cnet's Greg Sandoval has learnt from his sources that RIAA is not too keen on taking this any further as it only wanted to use the case as a deterrent. Sandoval also reminds everyone that Thomas-Rasset's refusal to settle with RIAA left it with no choice but to drag her to court.
Jammie in Grimmer Times
Image Credit: Wired
Comments are closed on this article
ThunderBolt
January 24, 2010 at 10:53am
I went to see Legion yesterday. It's a perfect example of why I download movies.
ThunderBolt
January 24, 2010 at 8:12pm
Full of cliche speeches, and some scenes had nothing to do with the already dumb story. But it's slightly better than Gamer.
For example:
In the beginning, the chick is giving the guy a speech, and she said something so cliche that made me go *sighs, facepalms*
There is blood dripping onto the slutty chick's face. I expected something fall from the celeing or something, but nothing happens, and nothing was mentioned about that. It was like "wtf was the point of that scene?!"There some additional moments, but I'm getting a headache just thinking about that movie.
I Jedi
January 24, 2010 at 7:48am
I think the new court ordered settlement was a lot more fair, and that she definitely deserves this. In my opinion, it is about using "common sense" whilst considering doing things like this. These companies have a right to protect their products, and if you can't fork over a $1 per-song then you're a pretty cheap person, I would say. In the end, she'll be paying this off for the next 20 years, but at LEAST the amount is more reasonable, and that it is something that is possible to pay off.
bjoswald
January 23, 2010 at 8:05pm
Now this is total bull shit. How do they expect anyone to pay a fine like that? Most people have to pay speeding tickets in installments! I'd give these greedy sons of bitches a dollar a week and hope they choke on it.
Cruzg10
January 23, 2010 at 12:45am
She had it coming. If she had used some common sense and not registered on Kazaa or limewire or whatever p2p she was using, it would have been more difficult for her to be tracked down. shes paying $54k for her ignorance
curley60
January 25, 2010 at 7:20am
Most MaximumPC readers are much more savvy than your regular pc user. As a simple IT tech, these people think P2P means person 2 person or is some other IM software. If you were to buy a watch from a street vendor then be arrested for having the item, the item is usually taken away and you are advised that only street vendors with permits displayed are the only legal vendors. If the RIAA knows of people who are illegally sharing, music or otherwise, isn't it their responsibility to inform these individuals or do they wait, bait, and wave their mighty sword.
This is going to get worse because it is soooo easy to enable multimedia sharing in Windows 7 that most people may be sharing music without knowing it. I charge extra to remove a virus if the person has the same illegal software on their computer the second time it is brought to me because the 1st time I educate them as to what software to stay away from.
I and a few members of my family and friends have stopped buying music, digital or otherwise. I know it will not make a dent in the music industry sales, but it does keep us from worrying about being prosecuted for mistakenly infringing on other peoples property. I recommend this to my clients as well. I recommend that they not embed music into their FaceBook or Myspace page or any home videos they make and plan on posting on YouTube.
The internet IP address is a digital recording device of everything you do while connected to the internet. I guess in the end, you are right, especially if they were serviced by me, they never should have registered or used that software.
Curley60
kevaskous
January 22, 2010 at 7:59pm
Shit like this makes me sick. 24$ worth of music, and they try to justify 54k out of it? the balls on these people are bigger then this world can sustain. When workers of that org start getting brutally murdered a few years from now, everyone is gonna ask why.
mesiah
January 22, 2010 at 10:01pm
Brutally murdered? Don't be a moron. I know most people that frequent this site side with the defendant because she is guilty of a crime we have all committed at one time or another. The funny thing is, no matter what the fine ended up being everyone was still outraged by it. And the rationalization that most people use is that she was sharing 24 songs at $1 a song thats a big fat $24 worth of music. What you don't consider for a second (or refuse to consider) is that she isn't being sued for stealing the songs, she is being sued for DISTRIBUTING them. She distributed them via a p2p network. Say only 5 people downloaded each song from her. That brings the total to $120. Then 5 people download the songs from the second generation owners. Now you are looking at $600. By the time you get to only the 5th generation you are looking at $15,000. In the world of P2P it could take mere days, or even hours for a song to be passed from one person to another 5 times. 5 more generations and you are up to $46.875 MILLION DOLLARS.
So, in the scheme of things, $54k is easily less than a dollar for each copy of a song that was generated because of her unlawful distribution. In reality, the $2M fine is most likely less than $1 per song generated to date.
Have a copied music before? Yes. Do I realise that I broke the law? Yes. If I were to punished for sharing that music would I be angry at the music industry? No, I would be angry at myself for knowingly breaking the law and getting cought. I certainly wont be planning to murder anyone. I hate DRM and the RIAA just as much as the next person. I feel that it very much hinders free use. But even though they may be stepping on our rights, that doesn't give us the right to steal. Now I will get down from my soap box. Good day.
Tekzel
January 22, 2010 at 6:42pm
I wonder what the original settlement, prior to any of the court involvement, was? Probably a lot lower than even $50k.
mesiah
January 22, 2010 at 10:15pm
Don't quote me on this, but most searches show that the average settlement offered by the RIAA at the time she was charged was around 2-4 thousand dollars. Just goes to show, if you break the law, sometimes is just best if you fess up to it and take your punishment.
